Faith by Definition

You have such a way with logic Iano.It utterly escapes me how totally ignoring the evidence can make one even surer about anything, yet the way you put it seems to just smooth over the cracks and make it almost reasonable to think that way.I love reading your posts even if we do seem to be irrevocably on opposite sides of almost every fence.

Whatever evidence that Iano was talking about in his post. It was a rather general point.
I don't know what specific evidence for which specific thing that he was talking about.

Very entertaining.
I don't see any evidence in any of the images though. They are specially designed to be ambiguous images or outright optical illusions.You can't reach conclusions from optical illusions.In most cases I can switch from one view to the other at will with no bias in either direction.

You must have a point because I disagree with you on this subject so in a way that actually reinforces your point, at least as far as your own method of reaching conclusions goes.I don't work that way. To me, I see both possibilities as equally valid until a thorough examination of all the pixels in the picture reveals either one image or the other as the prevalent one.
In the case of optical illusions, it is easy enough to see through them.
Take the one with the blocks and the wavy (or is it parallel) lines. At first you can't tell so you devise a test. Put a straight edge ruler against the screen of your PC monitor and the truth becomes obvious. They are parallel.In the case of the pictures which can be one thing or another, the chances of each being correct remain equal. The conlusion that I reach is that the pictures are equally valid either way because they were either designed that way or some fluke of chance made them that way.Conclusion = There is no correct way to look at them.

Fine, except that I made no such assertion. You made it yourself. I was only echoing it.Here is what you said. If you are travelling the path that leaves the evidence to reach your destination (conclusion) then you are ignoring the path of evidence.
Either that or you are talking some sort of double speak which makes no logical sense.